In two separate trials in 1985, Thompson was convicted of armed robbery and murder in the Orleans Parish of Louisiana. The robbery conviction came first, and Thompson thus did not testify in his own murder trial because the robbery conviction destroyed his credibility. Thompson was sentenced to death. He spent 18 years in prison – 14 of them isolated on death row – when, as Justice Ginsberg noted, the “truth came to light.” Thompson was exonerated just weeks before his scheduled execution because of a revelation that the prosecution conducted fundamentally unfair trials in both the armed robbery case and the murder case against him. Specifically, the prosecution deliberately withheld exonerating evidence from the defense in violation of longstanding Supreme Court precedent.

The prosecution admitted to withholding exonerating evidence for over twenty years – a “Brady” violation (named after the Supreme Court case establishing the rule). In the armed robbery case, the prosecution possessed fabric from one of the victim’s clothing that was stained with the perpetrator’s blood – the crime lab report concluded the blood did not match Thompson’s. In the murder case, the prosecution withheld police reports containing eyewitness accounts of the murder stating that the murderer looked nothing like Thompson. Prosecutors also withheld evidence that their key informant accepted bribe money from the victim’s family in exchange for testimony.

Justice Thomas’ and Scalia’s treatment of the “deliberate indifference” standard could significantly affect victims’ ability to rectify civil rights damages in a broad range of cases. Prosecutors already enjoy tremendous discretion and autonomy regarding those that they decide to arrest and prosecute. The majority’s heightened “pattern or practice” standard will likely increase that autonomy by further institutionalizing prosecutorial immunity from suit by the wrongfully convicted.